Absolutely agree, and your point d) in particular is extremely important regarding this proposal.
As I understand it so far, it is for the court to decide if these assets were “segregated assets" owned by the individuals who provided the collateral (and so presumably should be returned directly to those owners) or if the assets are considered to be part of TFL’s balance sheet, in which case then they will be subject to the asset distribution determined by the liquidation plan.
You’re mistaken about how a decentralized protocol works, especially a lending protocol, where each deposit or borrow is different. Unfortunately, a decentralized protocol will never recover the funds unless 100% of the wallets provide a police report detailing the exploit. This proposal isn’t a request for permission, as it’s a right that investors have. This doesn’t mean we won’t proceed, and we will do so confidentially if the proposal fails. The funds will be requested in another bridged Ethereum token so that they can be permanently removed from circulation on the blockchain. This is a right, not a privilege, and if we make a mistake, nothing will happen. Voting doesn’t actually change the fate of the funds. Furthermore, we don’t have to publish anything; we simply thought that community pressure was the best way to recover the funds. That a review will be requested and that they will most likely be prosecuted is a given.
If we’re right, which I believe we are, the funds will go into a dead wallet. That way you’ll know whether we’ve succeeded or not.
No problem, you are well within your rights to believe that I am mistaken, and indeed I could well be wrong.
If the funds are moved to another wallet as a result of your efforts, how will we know that the wallet is a “dead wallet”?
Because we will publish it. Our main objective is security and that admin rights be waived.
Obviously, not all the information has been revealed, and our intention with this proposal was for the funds to return to the multisig and not to a dead wallet. We only explained one of six exploits. Lunc and USTC are equally at risk. We chose ETH because we thought it was the easiest to explain, but obviously, we haven’t succeeded. The community doesn’t seem to understand basic concepts of decentralization, decentralized protocol, decentralized governance, and decentralized finance. They don’t even understand that governance is used to change parameters and that draining funds is considered an exploit. Unfortunately, Anchor Protocol no longer has governance since the functions were disabled, and draining funds can only occur from the admin wallet. Since TFL doesn’t exist and the admin wallet has been exploited, there is a culprit with a name and surname, and we know who it is. Draining decentralized funds is a crypto crime, and the person who has appropriated the funds will be prosecuted. The US government probably isn’t even interested in knowing this, since they’re the recipient and the SECG (Secretariat of International Cooperation) is handling the case. SECG collaborates with the FBI, Interpol, and the money laundering unit. You’re conflating institutions that handle different things to argue something that doesn’t work that way. We’re right, and this has been studied and analyzed for a long time.
Are you saying that the US government is going to accept decentralized funds, or in other words, funds stolen from a decentralized protocol? I don’t have any doubts, this should never have happened.
TFL does exist. It is a corporate entity in liquidation, controlled by the US bankruptcy court appointed trustee. This is a matter of fact and yet you keep dismissing it every time it is raised.
I think you have failed to convince (me at least) that this movement of funds that coincided with Wormhole Bridge shutting down, was nothing more than a court authorised movement of assets subject to the TFL liquidation process.
You also have not demonstrated that any exploit has taken place, simply relying on “trust me bro” because we say so. Sorry but no.
When all these points were raised in this thread, by myself and others, instead of addressing them meaningfully, you just attacked the commentors by claiming their knowledge/understanding to be substandard, which for me is a big red flag.
I have made no comments about what the US government may or may not accept. That is not relevant to anything I have written in this thread.
The proposal author and the subsequent comments provide 0 proof that these funds belong to the chain, and that the chain is entitled to them.
I’m voting NO
He knows not what he does Morty frendo… sad…
Who removed wallets that are part of the legal process from circulation? Who sent information to CMC? Why is Allnodes the one sending the information? That’s a real red flag. But I won’t be the one to judge. That’s what the law is for. I’m sorry, but that’s how it is for me. Good luck!
If you are referring to my private circulating supply API, I’m free to make it work however I want and I chose to make it work according to CMC’s definition of circulating supply, since I developed the API for them at Binance’s request 
Ok.I’m asking if you removed tokens from circulation by bypassing governance and if those wallets are flagged in the secgov lawsuit against tfl and ust.
Perhaps that’s a red flag and could be interpreted as market manipulation. But I’m not the judge.
I don’t know what you mean by “remove tokens from circulation” as you didn’t define it. I certainly don’t have any access to make core code changes that could achieve such a thing by “bypassing governance” lol.
Then you have nothing to worry about. I just fill out forms so the law can review certain cases, providing specific information. Dont worry and be Happy!!
fill out some forms and receive almost $1 million in return?
I’ll take my chances lol